click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 3, Barbara Hale 2, Sflafco 2, Mets 2, Us 2, Rick Brooks 1, Torres 1, Lambert 1, Kristin Hollings 1, Campos 1, Epson 1, California 1, Avalos 1, California Public Utilities Commission 1, The City 1, Mr. Kelly 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    March 25, 2013
    2:00 - 2:30pm PDT  

2:00pm
2:01pm
2:02pm
2:03pm
2:04pm
2:05pm
2:06pm
2:07pm
good afternoon and welcome to the laf co-meeting. we'll start off first with starting with laf co-sflafco portion. we
2:08pm
would like to thank you for broadcasting this meeting. lambert. madam clerk please call the roll? campos? commissioner bree, epson, commissioner march absent, avalos, present? there is a quorum. >> we are going to have sflafco business after the joint meeting. let's call recess for sflafco. we have a motion for recess. we'll take that without objection. this sflafco is in recess and now we can call the roll call for the joint pc sflafco meeting. >> president torres, court,
2:09pm
commissioner cane is on her way. we do have a quorum. >> great. we have a quorum for the sflafco side as well. just to have opening remarks, this is a meeting that we had scheduled from our last meeting in february or and january to talk about where we are with the clean power s f program. a lot of moving parts that remain. key is the approval not to exceed rate which has been before the board and is potentially in the hands of the public utilities commission today. we talk about not exceed rate, the actual rates we'll have for the s f program will be below what not to exceed
2:10pm
rates are. there is a delta between what the actual rates will be and not the compete rate and the survey results and we'll get feedback from both the pc side and sflafco side of what the mix can be for generation of the clean power program. also want to thank advocate for their work on this program the sf program. we wouldn't be here without the advocates support. i have been really excited about the interest there is in the build out of renewable energy that this program that will lead to and years to come. i think we do have some differences about how quickly that build out can happen. we have a great interest of both public utilities commission and sflafco and that would lead to
2:11pm
jobs and cleaner air for years to come. we'll have some discussion today about what our plan currently is and what it can be in the immediate future as well. we'll see the mic to our colleague. director of public utilities commission. any opening marks? >> none. i'm glad to be had been with my colleagues. >> great. that was item no. 3 and we can move on to next item no. 4. >> public comment members of the community -- on matters within the respective jurisdiction and not today's agenda. >> we'll have definitely opportunity to speak on agenda items as they come up today. this is about public comment. anyone would like to talk publically about any item not
2:12pm
on the agenda is welcome to do so at this time. okay. seen none come forward we close general public comment and we are going to hear item no. 5 after we hear item no. 6, 7 and 8. madam clerk please call no. 6, 7, 8 together. >> item no. 6 of the clean power s f community program clean air program for electronic customers within san francisco and the discussion of the rate fairness on the proposed clean power and not to exceed rate and charges. >> thank you. i think we have
2:13pm
barbara hale for discussion on these items. >> thank you very much. barbara hale assistant general manager for power. good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public. we have a pretty full agenda for you today. we are going to begin with a presentation from dave mets of sm # from our clean power results and we have some follow up items from our march 12, commission meeting that i will be responding to. we are going to review the proposed not to exceed rates, director of financial planning kristin hollings will make that presentation and we have our chair rate fairness board on the proposed not to exceed rate. so with that i would like if s f g tv could bring our
2:14pm
powerpoint presentation and we'll hear from mr. mets. >> thank you very much. i'm david mets. i'm here to provide you with a brief summary of the results that have survey. it's already been presented to members of the public utilities commission and i will move through it fairly quickly and answer questions you may have. you will see here the methodology of the survey, it tracts the survey that we have conducted for p u c and prior years and we have conducted many interviews in mid-february. those results were statistically weighted.
2:15pm
the survey was conducted on land lines and in english, chinese and spanish to not exclude participation. the results of the survey we conducted last year in 2012 as well as an initial survey done in 2011. however, interpreting those results i want to draw cautions about differing methodologies which limit them being entirely apples to apples comparisons. first there's a number of places where we changed the word to go better reflect the substance of the program as it existed at the time of each survey. similarly there were predicted rates and that information shifted. this year for the first time we had an up to date data base and
2:16pm
which was fresher and more accurate than prior years and finally perhaps most importantly last year included care customers who were left out of this survey. so slightly different base of respondents this year than we had last year. >> could you say for those who don't know who the care customers are? >> yes. maybe i will defer to staff to make sure we have an accurate explanation. >> care customers are those customers within p g and e services that qualify for low income rates. >> one of the initial questions we ask is whether our respondents had heard, seen or read anything about power sf and this is a question we asked in 2011 and found that awareness of the program was
2:17pm
low. in each year fewer 1 in 10 said they heard a great deal about it. this is new information for most local residents. we then had a conceptual questions on some of the key choices around power sf asking if they would prefer to pay more from coming from newer sources rather than paying the same rate and on that question we had a slim plurality. 48 percent said they would pay more to retain that hundred percent renewable electricity. those that had not heard about the program. will give a description outlining some of the programs most features. the
2:18pm
service they would provide, it's management through sfpuc and the fact that they will continue to deliver electricity and service on powerlines and the energy facilities to help provide renewable energy for the city. at this point the survey we did not provide information on projected rates. we describing the program conceptually and ask the respondents once the program was operating staying with power sf and/or return to pg and e. 45 percent told us they would stay. 30 would opt out and the remaining 1/4 of rate were undecided. it's a 1-2 ratio that would stay as opposed to opt out but there is a substantial number that would
2:19pm
indicate they were not sure and we have not given them information about rates. that's for those who were undecided are probably waiting to hear more about. just to give you context from those surveys, you are compare them, though similar though not identical. the numbers have always showed somewhere between 37 and 45 percent that they would remain with the program. these numbers are higher that they would stay with the program. the different nature of the survey is each year. so the next critical question was giving people information about what they would be asked to pay under clean power sf. and we offered our respondents not to exceed rate and that rate is specific both to the rate tier they are in 1-5 and
2:20pm
whether they receive basic or all service. they have the not to exceed rate for their usage category. given that information 47 percent said they would remain and 42 percent opt out and that drops significantly once we have given them that rate information. there were significant differences between the tiers and their reaction as to the not exceed rate. the portion that said they would remain were in tier one, clear majority said they would stay with the program, over 50 percent, the other higher tiers, the proportion indicated they would opt out and majority tier 2, 3, 4, 5. at the top of the screen. >> i think it's important to
2:21pm
note that when we talk about polls and survey, if there is a number above 50, we are not trying to measure that we are looking to parts to see if that will be staying in the program. these numbers are still presenting. >> that is correct. it's a different between opting out and opting in. the number of customers saying they would remain in the program is a substantial number even though it's below 50. >> thank you. >> the next slide shows a different rate indicating that it might be something lower in the not to exceed rate. we offered them a projected alternative rate and given that alternative rate the proportion indicating they would remain with the program is higher. it rose to 55 percent of those polled with those heard there
2:22pm
is a higher sensitivity there and a number for those indicating to stay with the program. we also wanted to explore the potential for p g and e to offer a program of choosing if they opt out of clean power sf and give a description of what that program might look like hand what it's cost might be which would presumably be a lower cost. given that option, a total of 17 percent of those indicated previously they would stay with clean power sf given the rate information we provided indicated they would opt out in favor of that p g and e program. >> what was your impression of the statistic? >> what i appreciate, they were
2:23pm
reporting the number different, the one thing i would put in there the question was split whether they would leave the program and definitely leave and probably. the definite was 43 percent. 13 percent says they would probably leave. i would anticipate that you would see a highly amount leaving. if you say i'm going to leave. they would have to fill out a second form saying i want to be in the green tier program. it a very small percent. >> at this rate we don't have a sense between the program of p g and e [!ez >> i would yield to the difference to the staff to
2:24pm
describe the difference of the two programs. >> what we know is what was filed at the california public utilities commission and in that setting the initial proposal was a reliant on renewable credit and assumed that customers would pay know more than 2 cents more for kilowatt hour than they presently pay. since then there have been proposals that may change. they can work this out. we expect not to hear in a month or so until something is formed in the california pc. thank you. >> so, if we take those who
2:25pm
indicated that initially they would stay with given the rate and those opt out from the alternative from p g and e. the number dropped to 40 percent and 45 percent who would opt out back to p g and e. one final question we asked -- >> question for you. >> mr. mets, there was some information sent to commissioners from rick brooks and it an accompanied a very interesting charts that would provide services that we are hoping to pro i provide here in san francisco. is there anything you can access as far as data to give us a picture [!ez
2:26pm
>> we have done with the marine services. i have to look at the numbers. the structure of that survey and the context of the questions was a little bit different, but the nature of the questions was similar, yes. >> i didn't notice any charts or questions in the is you are service that related to the job of this program. there is some debate about that. did that come across in your questions? >> we did not have questions that would impact unemployment. >> where are the objects? >> this survey was one in which we did not test a series of message that either proponents or opponents might offer. it was focused on specific price where it might vary under those
2:27pm
different conditions. there is a whole host of things that people on the other side of issues might including those points that you are raising. >> i'm knew new to this process, i share the same novice approach. was this issue raised before because i know you made some reference in your opening remarks on the labor issues. >> the way this program has been envisioned is it would lead to a massive job creation. we would have jobs to build our energy generation supply and we would have jobs to maintain it as well. so the belief that this is something that is a job killer is not really i believe with meets reality. we had economic impact report that showed -- i didn't think it was correct that may have shown the
2:28pm
loss of job was minimal, but we see it as job creation. there has been one union that has expressed a lot of alarm about the loss of jobs, that's the union that is actually currently servicing p g and e power supply 1245, we are seeing that we have many people in the room believing that it a program that is going to be about job creation and that we are definitely moving in that direction to make sure we have a very robust program that will lead to energy efficiency and jobs here in san francisco. >> may i ask mr. kelly a question? >> march 12, you issued -- question was specifically on the 95 local jobs and in your letter you indicated that the certain is an act that was different from what we seem to
2:29pm
implement. do do you recall that letter? >> would you give this to mr. kelly? >> for the colleagues who are requesting to speak, i don't see that on the roster. we are trying to fix it now. >> yes, kelly general manager what was the question again? >> the question is you make a reference to the 95 jobs that would be lost assumes a different scenario that is being proposed. central is that correct? >> yes. >> what was the scenario that would have included the loss of those jobs? on the fact that is a different approach before